Torque #'s Finally Here

Yah Black's where it's at to hide the fugly grille.

 

My wife has a 3.5/5speed auto in her 2010 Highlander which is a reasonably heavy vehicle in AWD trim. While there's typically no substitute for cubic inches, the 3.5's strength is in it's mid-range from 3500 rpms and up. It pulls very hard entering highways going from 35-80mph very quickly. With a change in gearing, cam timing, transmission ratios and overall vehicle weight, I feel it will work well in the Tacoma platform. BTW, the engine in my wife's H/L has been 100% reliable and is at 130K so far. I'd like to experience the 3.5 in a 2016 Pre-Runner, Access cab, I think it would really surprise a few people.
Motoretro

 

Yep and with an auto It may never hit it.

Wonder what the real lice HP is for the range the trans runs in.

 

With a 6000 plus tow rating I can not believe how much of a slug the taco is towing 1500 to 2500 lbs if you hit and grade or hills.

 

I found my Tacoma really great when towing under 2500 lbs with a Uhaul trailer. I was getting about 13 mpg with that setup and never dropped out of 4th that I can recall except to pass.

 

Well I'm not sure it is Toyota or just the vagaries of CAFE impacting the mid-size trucks. CAFE is very unfriendly to mid-size. Compared to the "competition" with Colorado giving more peak HP, but at a blistering 6800 RPM, and about the same torque down at 4000RPM indeed the 3rd gen seems a bit weaker than the Colorado specs. But the real question will be mileage, that's what is driving powertrain design these days. If the 3rd gen improves its mileage significantly then it is probably a good balance. Sure, not what some people might want - but CAFE is telling you that you can't necessarily buy what you want in a mid-size and so the real question is what balance is struck between all the specs.

As far as competition goes that's just one comparison too - there are many more specs and features beyond power and torque if you were going to compare the 3rd gen to another truck.

And as mentioned by others, the engine is just one part of the powertrain. The new gearing and transmission could make this just as good at towing as the 2nd gen. The devil is in the details and at present we don't have all the details.

At this point I'm guessing that if you are happy towing with the 2nd gen you'll likely be just about as happy with the 3rd gen. And if you are unhappy towing with the 2nd gen don't expect the 3rd gen to improve things much.

 

I'm more interested to see mpgs

 

<iframe width="854" height="510" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PaGrxPh-2RI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Wish there was a full-size truck that wasn't trying to look like a Mack truck on the market. That is why I loved the looks of the Gen 1 Tundra.

 

And don't forget the now ubiquitous "truck wedgie" as I call it. The ridiculously high bedsides and tailgates on the full size trucks making a step ladder a required accessory. (This change also being driven by CAFE it turns out).

 

High bed sides are also nice for company trucks. If the load is below the height of the box you don't need to secure it down nearly as much by law as if it is above the bed sides.

 

This. Sounds like heresy, but there is such a thing as "enough power".

 

My 2008 Highlander has the 3.5 v6 listed as 270hp /242 torque. If it wasn't front wheel drive it would be a really fun drive. Pulls hard on aggressive acceleration but lots of torque steer. Good sound too considering it's almost a minivan.

Depending on how it's tuned, I think there is promise.

 

I can tolerate some buzz if long-term reliability is there and it can tow my travel trailer without panting like a dog. The Chevy Colorado got pretty good marks from the TFL guys towing 5,000 lbs up the Ike Gauntlet. They were able to maintain the speed limit and even exceed it. I've driven that pass many time. It's a great testing grounds. I think revvy mid-sizers are just the new norm now. Shouldn't compromise long-term reliability as these engines were designed to rev. The real question is how the manual and auto will differ with MPG and towing.

 

brother

 

I took pictures next to a short-bed F150. My DCSB is actually only like 6" off total. It's crazy how similar in size they are.... I have pictures somewhere...

FOUND THEM!

Remember, this is DCSB compared to an F150 DCSB (4-door, 5-foot bed)

 

^^^ Seeing that in person, side-by-side I think I've actually been able to rationalize stepping up to the smallest full-size in the future. This tacoma doesn't offer much over an F150 of that size.

 

The difference is the width and weight. On a small trail the F150 is to wide and heavy.

Yeah, I lined my DCLB up with our 2015 F150 SuperCrew Shortbox and they were within inches. The approach angles were much better on the Tacoma though and the Tacoma is over a half foot narrower.

 

Oh cool, I didn't realize the width was that much different. I couldn't obviously compare that easily in the position that I was parked in. I'm not going to be going fullsize for a while, but I definitely wish I had sometimes. Without a supercharger this tacoma feels pretty weak when towing a load.

 

For towing a full sized is really the truck to go with.